Not our terrorist - not our problem? A case-study of the ethical considerations taken by Danish parliamentarians when extending national denationalization powers between 2015-2019, and its consequences for state-legitimacy

(1)

“Not our terrorist” – not our problem?

A case-study of the ethical considerations taken by Danish parliamentarians when extending national denationalization powers between 2015-2019, and its consequences for

state-legitimacy

Anna Gammelgaard Sarasibar 2418681

Master’s Thesis

Crisis and Security Management Supervisor: Dr. Tahir Abbas Second reader: Els de Busser

Leiden University June 2020

(2)

1

Section I: Introduction

In the aftermath of 9/11, numerous Western powers mirrored the United States’ pledge to wage a “war on terror”, with Denmark being one of only two member states of the European Union (EU) to supply combat forces for direct participation in the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq (Rasmussen, 2003). Under the politicized guise of “national security”, the Danish state spear-headed Scandinavian efforts to enhance regional counter-terrorism powers through the instrumentalization of national laws and administrative tools (Midtbøen, 2019).

These tools originally targeted what was then framed as an external evil, embodied by the terrorist group, Al-Qaeda and its affiliated networks. However, with the rise of the

Islamic State (IS) in 2014, and the subsequent wave of attacks its supporters carried out on European soil, Danish state-powers were extended even further, facilitating the use of domestic counter-terrorism tools against their own nationals (Ibid). Paradoxically, whilst priding itself on belonging to a geographical region that is known for its promotion of peace and human rights, Denmark’s current counter-terrorism framework is one of the most extensive in Europe.

At present, one of the most disputed tools found in the Danish state’s counter-terrorism “toolbox” is that of denationalization, referring to the involuntary removal of an individual’s citizenship (Eide, 2000). Danish politicians have argued that the revival of such a measure for security purposes allows for a swift and efficient removal of domestic terrorist threats. However, the vast majority of scholarship on the topic at hand warns of a different reality – a reality wherein the use of denationalization endangers the very democratic rights and freedoms it is designed to protect (Esbrook, 2016; Fargues, 2017; Gibney, 2013; Hailbronner, 2015; Trimbach & Reiz, 2018).

(5)

4 Scholars have put forward a plethora of issues emanating from the extension and use of denationalization in the context of terror, highlighting that its use is in stark contrast with the West’s liberal democratic foundations. Across the entirety of the academic spectrum, ranging from legal scholarship, to that of the political and social sciences, three concerns resonate as being particularly worrying: (I) the arbitrary use of state power, (II) the creation of statelessness, and (III) the unequal treatment of citizens.

The relatively novel use of denationalization for counter-terrorism purposes makes it difficult to assess the extent to which the above-noted worries are warranted in cases where citizens accused of endangering national security through terror have involuntarily lost their citizenship. However, when noting the increasing amount of Danish foreign fighters awaiting their sentence in camps and detention centers in conflict zones, it is just as important to determine the legitimacy of the denationalization-laws they stand to face (Betin et al., 2016). In other words, have such laws been built on foundations that, in the very least, are informed by considerations to the above-noted ethical risks? If they are not, the utilitarian “lesser evil” doctrine, historically adhered to in the West when national security has come under threat, would deem their use illegitimate (van Riezen & Roex, 2012).

The following thesis sets out to explore this issue through a content analysis of the parliamentary debates (n = 6) preceding the passing of legislative amendments (n = 2) to two national acts that, between 2015-2019, have expanded the denationalization powers of the Danish state. In doing so, the thesis answers the following research question:

“To what extent do Danish parliamentarians taken into account the issues of (I) arbitrariness, (II) the creation of statelessness and (III) the unequal treatment of citizens when deciding to extend their state’s powers to denationalize?”

(6)

5

Organization of research

To answer the research question presented above, the remainder of the thesis is structured as follows: section II provides a definition for denationalization and traces the historical background of its use in Western Europe, with a particular focus on Denmark. The section also introduces a literature review of the main scholarly concerns pertaining to the use of denationalization as a counter-terrorism tool, subsequently placing it in a wider theoretical and practical context. In doing so, the rationale underlying the “lesser evil” and the “dirty hands” doctrine is presented, as are its implications for state-legitimacy.

The thesis’ methodology is presented in section III. First, the study’s analytical scope in the context of case-study analysis as a research method is outlined, along with its major benefits and limitations. This is followed by an introduction to content analysis, including the thesis’ operationalization of the three scholarly concerns regarding the Danish state’s use of denationalization. Section IV answers the research question by presenting the empirical results of the content analysis of Amendment L. 44 and L. 38 of the 2004 and 2018 Nationality Act respectively. The conclusion and further implications of the analysis’

findings are outlined in section V. Section VI presents the thesis’ bibliography, whilst section VII contains the content analysis’ coding book and coding sheets.

(7)

6

Section II: Literature Review

“Denationalization”

Definition. Denationalization refers to “the involuntary loss of citizenship”, and should be distinguished from “deportation”, referring to the physical expulsion of an individual from a given territory (Gibney, 2014, p. 639). Citizenship can, depending on the country and its corresponding legal system, be lost in numerous ways, including continued residency abroad, fraud, service in a foreign army, and/or acts of disloyalty or treason. As the focus of the thesis lies on the use of denationalization as a counter-terrorism tool in Denmark, the involuntary loss of citizenship will be studied in the context of Danish citizens having committed acts of treason and/or crimes that are considered to be seriously prejudicial to the national security of Denmark.

The concepts of nationality and citizenship have different meanings in the social, political and legal sciences. Although this distinction warrants a discussion in its own right, the academic debate pertaining to the loss of citizenship in the context of terrorism has interchangeably used “nationality” as well as “citizenship” to refer to the wider notion of the contractual relationship between an individual person – “a national” – and the state,

representing “the nation” (Eide, 2000). As a result, the two concepts will, for the purpose of this thesis, be used synonymously, unless otherwise stated. The same is the case for

“citizenship deprivation”, “deprivation of nationality” and “loss of citizenship”, all of which will interchangeably be used to refer to the above-noted definition for denationalization (Gibney, 2014).

Two types of denationalization. It is important to note that the involuntary loss of citizenship can result in one of two forms of denationalization, depending on the legal system in place. First, it can occur through the denationalization of citizens with two nationalities

(8)

7 (dual-citizens), where the second nationality – often the one being removed – has been

acquired after birth, a process referred to as “naturalization” (Safran, 1997). This is the only scenario wherein the involuntary loss of citizenship is allowed under the national laws of most Western European countries, including Denmark (de Groot & Vink, 2010). Second, and more rarely, the involuntary loss of citizenship can also occur through the denationalization of single nationals, who as a result become stateless if they are unable to acquire a second nationality, as is currently possible under English law (Anderson, 2016; Mantu, 2018).

Legal versus administrative removals of citizenship. In most European states that allow the use of denationalization for counter-terrorism purposes, it is necessary for citizens to have been a. convicted – often on criminal charges – of having committed acts that fall under their given country’s legislative terrorism-clauses prior to the removal of their citizenship; and b. the removal of such citizenship needs to be determined by a national judge, often as a result of trial proceedings that allow for further legal appeals to be made by the defendant (de Groot & Vink, 2010). This process is commonly known as “the legal removal of citizenships” (Ibid). However, for the purpose of efficiency, some European states, the first being the United Kingdom, the latest being Denmark, have introduced laws that shift the ability to denationalize from the judiciary to the executive branch. This allows representatives from the latter, such as the Foreign- and Integration Minister (DK), to remove the citizenship of those deemed to be a threat to national security. In doing so, their

discretionary powers forego the need for judges to have granted criminal convictions prior to the executive’s decision (Mantu, 2018; Undenrigsministeriet, 2020).

Terrorism and its “terrorists”

At present, no single definition for “terrorism” – and its corresponding “terrorists” and “foreign fighter” labels – exists, making its legal definition a power-latent and highly

(9)

8 disputed topic in the political and academic arenas around the world. For the purpose of this thesis, the term “terrorist”, “terrorism” and “foreign fighter” will be synonymous to their definitions as laid-out in Danish law.

Danish definition. At present, there is no clear definition for “terrorism” or “terrorists” in the corresponding national laws of Denmark. As noted by Vagn Greve, a Danish professor of criminal justice at Copenhagen University, this is highly problematic (Keiding, 2008):

“The question of defining terrorism is adequate for political discussion. But according to [Denmark’s] criminal law one can go to jail for lifetime without [the state] being able to tell people what it is they cannot do. That goes against our principles of justice.”

In addition to undermining the ability for judges to uniformly – and thus fairly – perform rulings in cases where a legal terrorist-framework applies, a former boss of the Danish Security and Intelligence Service (“Polities Efterretningstjeneste”) has stated that “there is a tendency for Muslims to be labeled ‘terrorists’ before others” (Thobo-Carlsen, 2016).

In Denmark’s political circles, this lack of definitional clarity further resonates, as exemplified during a 2008 political meeting titled “Terrorism and the open society”, wherein the now former leader of the Social Democrats (“Socialdemokraterne”), Mogens Lykketoft, stated:

“A unanimous vote in the United Nations has decided that we must fight terrorism. But it’s almost impossible to agree on who is a terrorist. Why is Hamas on the terror-list, when Hizbolla isn’t? I see no significant difference between the two organizations” (Keiding, 2008).

Due to such a lack of conceptual clarity, the terms “terrorist” and “foreign fighter” have, in Denmark’s political and legal spheres, been used interchangeably; however, with the

(10)

9 rise of legal cases that in recent years have surged against (presumed) Danish citizens

fighting for the Islamic State (IS), state- and legal authorities have tended to use the former terminology. As such, when looking at Danish case-law that has incorporated the Danish Criminal Code’s § 114 (Statsministeriet, n.d.), the follow definition is commonly used:

“For [acts of ] terrorism, the punishment of life imprisonment is given to anyone who forcibly intimidates a population or unjustly forces Danish or foreign public authorities or an

international organization to take or fail to act or to destabilize or destroy the basic political, constitutional, economic or societal structure of a country or an international organization commits one or more of the following actions [see § 114] where, by virtue of its nature or the context in which it is committed, it may cause serious harm to a country or international organization:

I) Man-slaughter according to § 237;

II) Serious violence under section 245 or section 246;

III) Detention under section 261;

IV) Disruption of road safety under section 184 (2);

V) Hijacking of means of transport under section 183 a;

VI) Violent gun law offenses under section 192a or the Arms and Explosives Act section 10;

VII) Fire arson pursuant to section 180, explosion, spread of harmful gases, flood, shipwreck, railway or other transport accident according to section 183 (2) and hazardous contamination of the water supply pursuant to section 186 (1).”

Thus, for the purpose of this thesis, the term “terrorist” and “foreign fighter” will

interchangeably refer to individuals who have performed acts that fall under the above-noted definition.

(11)

10

Historical background: roots and regional practices

Post-war denationalization and the prevention of statelessness. The ability for states to decide whom their nationals are can be traced back centuries, with the use of

denationalization first appearing in national legislations during post-World War I’s England, fueled by a strong “distrust and hostility towards Germans residing in the [country]” (Gibney, 2014, p. 327).

However, following the “nationality purge” experienced by millions during World War II, global efforts were made to reduce statelessness and grant those without citizenship basic standards of treatment. The most important of these efforts include the 1954

Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, and the 1997 European Convention on Nationality, all of which have been ratified by Denmark (“Convention on the Reduction of Statelesness,” 1961; “European Convention on Nationality,” 1997).

“The War on Terror” and the revival of denationalization in Europe. In the aftermath of 9/11, many liberal democracies in the West pledged to follow the United States in waging a global “war on terror” (Esbrook, 2016). Through a politicized “them-against-us” narrative, famously coined by the late American scholar, Samuel P. Huntington, “executive focus [shifted] toward security and terrorism” (Huntington, 1996; Mantu, 2005, p. 33). Facilitated by the instrumentalisation of national laws, more expansive counter-terrorism toolboxes were created, targeting what was initially framed as a common, and, more importantly, external evil: namely, al-Qaeda and its affiliated networks of “foreign, Islamic terrorists” (Ibid).

However, following a surge in deadly terrorist attacks perpetrated on Western soil, the “outward” gaze of many European states’ counter-terrorism efforts shifted. For example,

(12)

11 following the 2005 London Attacks, that were carried out by four British-born nationals and killed 56 people, the British government introduced a new piece of legalization that

specifically targeted its own citizens (Mantu, 2018). Such a shift in legislative focus was excused by the argument that the old citizenship deprivation powers did not accurately reflect “the types of activity that might threaten [the United Kingdom’s] democratic institutions and ways of life” (Ibid, p. 34). Ultimately, the legislative changes incurred by the citizenship laws of most Western European countries now make it possible for states to wage a war on terror at home as well as abroad (Parson, 2016, in Mantu, 2018, p. 34; Gibney, 2014, p. 326-328).

The rise of IS and regional expansions of denationalization – the case of

Denmark. Between 2013-2018, the wider international community bore witness to the rise of the terrorist group Islamic State – also known as ISIS, ISIL and Daesh – in Iraq and Syria, and the subsequent string of deadly attacks it unleashed in Europe, a number of which were perpetrated by Western nationals (Nada, 2019). In response to what was becoming a pressing domestic security issue, numerous European states further mirrored the United Kingdom’s instrumentalization of citizenship-stripping laws.

Under the guise of national security, the legal grounds for removing the citizenship of European nationals has subsequently been expanded in countries that have experienced IS-affiliated attacks and/or have had a substantial number of their own nationals pledge allegiance to IS, as has been the case in France, Belgium and the Netherlands (Jayaraman, 2016; Trimbach & Reiz, 2018). However, facilitated by increasing feelings of fear,

islamophobia and right-wing populism, the debate for using denationalization as a counter-terrorism tool has also spread to less militarized regions, including one of peace and democracy’s main proponents: Scandinavia.

(13)

12 “Part of the rationale for the political support for allowing dual citizenship was that [it] would make it easier to revoke citizenship from dual citizens that had engaged in or supported acts of terror” (Midtbøen, Birkvad, & Erdal, 2018, p. 94).

In 2015, Denmark, as the first Scandinavian country to do so, introduced the

possibility for Danish citizens to hold more than one nationality (Midtbøen, 2019). This legal change was catalyzed by a political desire to use citizenship for domestic counter-terrorism purposes – a desire that grew following the 2015 Copenhagen Attacks, where the Danish-Palestinian national, Omar Abdel Hamid El-Hussein, shot and killed 3 people (Ibid). As a result, some scholars have noted that Denmark commenced its formal departure from its “soft” approach to “home-grown” terrorism, epitomized by the widely cited Aarhus model – a model that focuses on the early prevention of radicalization and religious extremism in the Aarhus-area, through a community-based, collaborative approach between youth-groups at risk of radicalization, their families, local authorities and the police (Aarhus Kommune, 2020; Johansen, 2019).

2019 marked a further departure from the above-noted “soft” approach, when the Danish Parliament passed a new law, granting the Foreign- and Integration Minister of Denmark similar powers to those held by the United Kingdom’s Home Secretary

(Undenrigsministeriet, 2020). More specifically, by allowing the former to circumvent the Danish criminal system entirely, it is now possible for dual-nationals, without criminal charges, to have their Danish citizenship administratively removed by the Foreign- and Integration Minister, effective immediately (Ibid).

These changes have since led numerous human rights groups and advocates, the most vocal being the Danish Institute for Human Rights, to argue that the use of denationalization is unconstitutional (Pedersen & Holmen, 2019). This is largely because the above-noted 2019 law undermines the ability for those stripped of their Danish nationality to appeal their case,

(14)

13 as they are informed of the decision via email and are only given a four-week

appeal-window. Additionally, as they are prohibited from re-entering the country due to their

immediate loss of Danish citizenship, their appeal will be carried out from abroad – a process that is particularly difficult for those the law is, as noted by the current Foreign- and

Integration Ministers, Mattias Tesfaye, intended to target: namely, Danish foreign-fighters located in conflict zones in the Middle East, the vast majority of whom are estimated to be in camps and/or detention centers without internet access or proper legal counsel (Ibid).

Academic Concerns

Parallel to the increased denationalization-powers that numerous Western states have experienced over the past two decades, a normative academic debate pertaining to its use has developed. Albeit a handful of scholars argue in favour of instrumentalizing denationalization laws for national security purposes, the vast majority agree that “citizenship revocation is an extremely harsh step, that could be replaced with alternative “hard” or “soft” approaches” (Trimbach & Reiz, 2018). In the section below, the three main scholarly “concerns”

pertaining to the use of the counter-terrorism tool in question are presented. They include the arbitrary use of state power, statelessness, and the unequal treatment of citizens.

Arbitrariness. Although allowing for some level of discretion when it comes to the manner in which states protect and promote human rights under their national laws, Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) clearly states that the right to nationality is a basic right of which “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived...” (United Nation General Assembly, 1948). Mirroring the UDHR’s concern for abuses to the right to

nationality, scholars highlight the arbitrary removal of citizenships as a considerable concern present when states make use of their denationalization powers.

(15)

14 Macklin alludes to the notion that by relaxing citizen-stripping laws, states become moral judges of what constitutes as “good” and “bad” citizens, turning the right to citizenship into a performance-dependent privilege, rather than an inherent human right, beyond the state’s sphere of influence (Macklin, 2015). Joppke and Esbrook corroborate this claim, arguing that denationalization-powers can easily be abused by states when the discretionary grounds for their use are facilitated by ambiguous national security clauses – for example, when being broadly defined as “conductive to the public good” (Esbrook, 2016, p. 12; Joppke, 2015).

Gibney warns of spill-over effects, where increased discretionary powers from

citizen-stripping laws may not only facilitate the use of other counter-terrorism measures, but may also affect other policy areas (e.g. immigration, the ability to obtain nationality etc.) (Gibney, 2015). As a result, Kanstroom argues that the use of denationalization is a prime example of how states make it easier for themselves to side-step legal justice in favour of their policy agendas (Kanstroom, 2015).

Statelessness. Similar to the issue of arbitrariness, lies the scholarly concern that the use of denationalization as a counter-terrorism tool is unproportionate to the punishment it ultimately stands to bring upon those affected – namely, by rendering them stateless.

As noted by Esbrook, denationalization-practices ultimately cast a much wider net of rights and freedoms that stand to be undermined if the nationality of single-nationals is

removed, effectively rendering them stateless (Esbrook, 2016). These include the “freedom of movement and livelihood without question of administrative violations”, the “right to petition a home State for representation at an international court”, and the right to freedom of

movement across international borders, protected by the UDHR’s Article 13 as well as the EU’s 1990 Schengen Convention (Ibid, p. 9-19). Comparing such practices to a “political

(16)

15 death-penalty”, Bauböck and Trimbach & Reiz argue that denationalization-practices are not proportionate, particularly when taking into account that other, less intrusive measures exist (Bauböck, 2015; Trimbach & Reiz, 2018).

Furthermore, in response to the argument that the issue of statelessness is unlikely as, so far, it is only the United Kingdom that allows the denationalization of single-nationals, Gibney notes that denationalized dual-nationals may find themselves in a situations where they are “forced to rely on a state that is unable to protect them or otherwise deliver the fundamental [human] rights citizenship is supposed to guarantee” (Gibney, 2015, p. 93). As a result, they become de facto stateless.

Unequal treatment of citizens. Finally, scholars warn of the unequal treatment of citizens as a result of denationalization-powers on two separate grounds. First, Fargues argues that by introducing clauses that specifically target “Islamist terrorists”, French

citizen-stripping laws are discriminatory towards a particular segment of French society (Fargues, 2017). He thus warns of the risk of “social divisiveness”, ultimately endangering “the unconditional [human] rights of individuals” (Ibid, p. 994).

Second, in spite of Gibney’s above-noted argument for the de facto statelessness of dual-citizens, Spiro and Jayaraman claim that because most national laws prohibit the denationalization of single-nationals, the counter-terrorism tool in question particularly targets nationals with two citizenships (Jayaraman, 2016; Spiro, 2015). Hailbronner notes that there are international human rights statutes that protect against “second-class citizenships”, which he argues is the case for dual-nationals whose second nationality is less secured from denationalization than that pertaining to single-nationals (Hailbronner, 2015). However, he suggests that national citizen-stripping laws rarely consider these protections in their legal frameworks (Ibid).

(17)

16

Theory: a “dirty hand” or “a lesser evil”?

As noted by Bram van Riezen and Karlijn Roex in their 2012 study of Dutch and British counter-terrorism practices,

“[counter-terrorism] policy is sometimes based on legitimacy arguments, especially when it affects civil rights. These legitimacy arguments can be classified on the basis of two doctrines: the “dirty hands” doctrine and the “lesser evil” doctrine” (van Riezen & Roex, 2012, p. 97).

The logic underlying these two doctrines is rooted in the consequentialist ethical theory of utilitarianism, which at its core “determines right from wrong by focusing on outcomes”, ultimately holding that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number (IEP, 2020). In doing so, utilitarianism is the only moral framework that can be used to justify military force or war, and is limited in that it does not “account for justice or individual rights” (Ibid). The rationale presented by van Riezen and Roex is rooted in the utilitarian notion that when state authorities design or make use of particularly intrusive counter-terrorism policies for “national security purposes”, they use one of two benefit-maximizing logics to justify their given choice.

The “dirty hands” doctrine. If state-authorities choose the “dirty hands” approach –

the more extreme of the two approaches – they follow the rationale that, in situations where the country is faced with a national security emergency, behaviour that would previously be prohibited or restricted by law, now becomes allowed (Ibid, p. 98). Due to the doctrine’s focus on fast intervention, the state is acting illegitimately if it considers moral and ethical concerns prior to using a particular counter-terrorism tool, because doing so slows down its reaction-time, thereby endangering its citizens even further (Ibid). In order to ensure that the presumed threat is considered a “national security emergency”, a fast-paced, securitizing

(18)

17 language, aimed at instilling feelings of fear in its targeted population, is often used by

national politicians and representatives from the security apparatus.

Since it became clear that the United States had in 2003 invaded Iraq without a second UN authorization and subsequently made use of torture against “suspected terrorists” on grounds that were, at best, erroneous, the “dirty hands” doctrine has been heavily

criticized by the international community for its facilitation of human-rights abuses and exercises of undue state power (Ibid, p. 98). As a result, the second, “lesser evil” approach is, as noted by van Riezen and Roex, more “attractive in the liberal-democratic thinking of the West”, including Denmark (Ibid).

The “lesser evil” doctrine. The lesser evil approach draws on a similar “national security emergency” rationale as that of the dirty hands, with one major difference: namely,

“the need for careful considerations of ethical norms [as] even in emergencies, governments need to weigh the relative importance of, on the one hand, desired goals and, on the other hand, of ethical and legal [concerns]” (Bellamy, 2009 in Riezen & Roex, 2012, p. 98).

This is not to say that the creation and subsequent use of highly instrumental policies and tools cannot be used according to this doctrine. However, for such a use to be justified, it is vital that national policy-makers take their time to consider relevant ethical and legal risks, and subsequently weigh them against the impact that refraining from using specific counter-terrorism tools stands to have on their state’s ability to ensure national security.

Thus, for the case at hand, the “lesser evil” doctrine pre-supposes that the Danish states-authorities have in the very least considered the risks of arbitrariness, statelessness and the unequal treatment of citizens prior to instrumentalizing national laws facilitating

denationalization as a counter-terrorism tool. If they have not, the doctrine renders the state’s actions as being illegitimate.

(19)

18

Problem-statement: the ethical foundations of the Danish state’s denationalization powers

The focus of the three afore-mentioned scholarly concerns – namely, arbitrariness, statelessness and the unequal treatment of citizens – primarily lies on the imagined effects resulting from the use of denationalization against Western nationals. The relatively novel use of the counter-terrorism tool in question, resulting in a low number of cases to be studied, makes it difficult to assess the extent to which the scholars’ worries are at present warranted.

Premise of thesis-research. When noting the increasingly vocal stance that the government of Denmark has taken against the return of what was in 2016 estimated to be 125 Danish foreign fighters, the issue of denationalization is, for those still alive, unlikely to wane in the near future – a trend that also stands to affect what is currently estimated to be over forty children held with their Danish parent(s) in Syrian detention facilities (Betin et al., 2016; Haislund, 2019a).

Rather than waiting to see whether the use of denationalization results in the above-noted damages, it is, from a scholarly as well as a policy perspective, equally valuable to establish and understand whether the denationalization laws currently in place in Denmark are built on foundations that consider the inherent ethical risks they pose – thereby following a “lesser evil” approach – or if they forgo all ethical considerations in the name of “national security”, ultimately adopting the controversial “dirty hands” doctrine (van Riezen & Roex, 2012).

Future implications. If it is found that the latter is the case, there is still time for the Danish state to legitimize its current citizen-stripping laws by, in the very least,

re-considering them in a political light that is informed by the above-noted risks

(20)

19 those waiting to return from the Islamic State. As a result, the main research question that this thesis addresses is as follows:

To what extent do Danish parliamentarians taken into account the issues of (I) arbitrariness, (II) the creation of statelessness and (III) the unequal treatment of citizens when deciding to extend their state’s powers to denationalize?

(21)

20

Section III: Methodology

Case-study analysis: parliamentary expansions of Denmark’s denationalization powers between 2015-2019

Analytical scope: timeframe and debates. For the purpose of answering the research question at hand, the thesis will perform a case-study analysis of all Danish parliamentary debates preceding the legislative enhancement of denationalization powers for the Danish state. The aim is to analyze the extent to which Danish parliamentarians have addressed the scholarly issues of (I) arbitrary state power, (II) statelessness and (III) the unequal treatment of citizens in the context of extending the above-noted powers. This will be done through a content analysis of all relevant debates.

As the focus of the research lies on the use of denationalization for specific counter-terrorism purposes, the case-study analysis will only focus on relevant parliamentary debates between 2015 – when Danish parliamentarians made it possible for citizens to hold dual-citizens, thereby facilitating the state’s abilities to strip nationals of their Danish citizenship through an amendment to the 2004 Nationality Act – and 2019 – when the Danish parliament last extended the Danish state’s denationalization powers for specific counter-terrorism purposes through an amendment to the 2018 Nationality Act.

As a result, the analysis will analyze the research question in light of all Danish parliamentary discussions (total n = 6) preceding the passing of the following legislative enhancements (n = 2): Amendment L. 44 of the 2004 Nationality Act (DK) and Amendment L. 38 of the 2018 Nationality Act.

(22)

21 Benefits of case-study analysis as a research method. Exploring the topic of

enhanced denationalization powers in a Danish context has numerous advantages. First, as Denmark’s 2019 parliamentary amendments signal the last time a Western state has extended its powers to denationalize for specific counter-terrorism purposes, the three scholarly

concerns as presented previously are analyzed in their most recent context. Doing so by only focusing on one country ensures that their worries can be explored in great detail (Levy, 2008; Yin, 2015).

Second, following the United Kingdom, Denmark has historically been amongst one of the first Western European states to formally act on its promise to “wage a war on terror”, as exemplified by its 2003 entrance in the US-led invasion of Iraq (Friis, 2012). Similarly, it has been the most instrumental Scandinavian state in using and enhancing its citizenship-laws for counter-terrorism purposes, exemplified by the fact that it is one of only a few European states to allow the administrative removal of citizenships. As a result, Denmark can be seen as a “most-likely” case, wherein the premise lies that if the above-noted worries expressed by the scholars in question do not appear in Danish parliamentary discussions preceding the enhancement of Denmark’s denationalization powers, they are unlikely to appear in those of other Western European countries (Levy, 2008).

Third, Denmark has during the past two decades experienced fatal terrorist-attacks perpetrated in the name of Islamic-extremism by Danish nationals, making it an ideal case-study for the “dirty hands” versus “lesser evil” doctrines that specifically apply in situations where national security is threatened (van Riezen & Roex, 2012). Additionally, whilst the use of denationalization in larger military states, such as the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States, has been studied in great depth, its use in the region of Scandinavia remains largely unexplored.

(23)

22 Fourth, Denmark has been a source of inspiration for other Western states looking to expand their own denationalization powers for counter-terrorism purposes, making the thesis’ potential findings relevant far beyond a Danish-scope. For example, as of 2020, the

Norwegian state passed a law that allows dual-nationality, referring in its parliamentary debates to the Danish state’s use of similar laws in the context of returning foreign fighters (Regeringen, 2018).

Limitations of study analysis as a research method. Inherent to any case-study design, the analysis suffers from numerous limitations. First, in part due to limited time and resources, as well as lack of available primary material (e.g. parliamentary debates) only one Western European country was chosen for the analysis. This is a limitation as a small N limits the explanatory power and generalization of the final results, in part due to not being able to account for rival explanations that may have appeared if more countries were studied (Flyvberg, 2006; Gromm, Hammersley, & Foster, 2000).

Second, as the three academic worries are largely directed at the political and legal systems of larger military states, such as France, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and the United States, it is possible that their relevance for the Danish case-study is limited or does not figure in the context of Danish parliamentary debates on denationalization.

However, as the enhanced counter-terrorism powers of the Danish state have to a far extent mirrored those of the United Kingdom, the limitation in question is minor for the analysis at hand. Nevertheless, as the limitation cannot fully be ruled out, a short description will be made prior to the analysis of the individual amendments, thereby accounting for any major contextual factors that may have influenced the relevant debates (Ibid).

Third, the time-period chosen is relatively short, largely occurring after the above-noted worries were introduced in the wider academic debate on (enhanced) counter-terrorism

(24)

23 powers in the West. However, whilst this may in terms of academic relevance be a limitation, it has the benefit of testing whether the three worries continue to be present in the “war on terror” currently waged in Europe’s less-studied regions (e.g. Scandinavia).

Content analysis

Analytical scope. To answer the research question at hand, the thesis will make use of qualitative content analysis, specifically using the official transcripts of the above-noted parliamentary debates (n = 6) as the analysis’ main source of data-material. The material is transcribed in its original language by Danish parliamentary staff, made available for public reading on the Parliament’s official websites.

The method: qualitative content analysis. Content analysis, as a qualitative research method, is an approach that quantifies what is often a notion, an idea or an argument

pertaining to a material of analytical interest – material that, for the method at hand, often comes in the form of written text, with anything from a word to entire paragraphs as possible units of analysis (White & Marsh, 2006). As such, qualitative content analysis allows the researcher to systematically describe textual content, thereby making it possible to derive processable data. Whereas the focus of purely quantitative methods is to objectively measure or count, thereby increasing reliability through replicability, the main focus of the research method at hand is to analyze material that ultimately requires a certain level of contextual-consideration (Ibid). Consequently, by taking into account the context of the material studied, thereby lowering the risk for misinterpretations, qualitative content analysis often increases the validity of a study’s results (Beckman, 2005).

A major benefit of qualitative content analysis it that it becomes possible to

systematically identify and sort ideas that may not initially be evident in the text (Ibid). For example, in the case of parliamentary debates pertaining to the extension of Denmark’s

(25)

24 denationalization powers, it may be that a quick, first-reading of the relevant transcripts shows no mention of the word “statelessness”. However, by re-reading the text again, whilst paying particular attention to the overall meaning of each paragraph, it may be that the idea of statelessness is in fact present, for example, by being addressed through a different word with a similar meaning. Regardless, it is important to note that the form of content analysis used for this study focuses on garnering an empirical understanding of the written text, as opposed to the identification and interpretation of “hidden” meanings.

Coding the three scholarly concerns. For the purpose of answering the research question at hand, the comparative content analysis will specifically study whether the

scholarly issues of arbitrariness, statelessness and the unequal treatment of citizens as a result of denationalization are addressed by politicians in the Danish parliamentary debates listed previously. In order to do so in a manner that provides reliable data, it is necessary to set detailed and strict coding-rules to be followed when searching for the presence – or absence – of each idea (Basit, 2003). Consequently, a detailed description for each coding-category and corresponding rules can be found in Codebook I, in Annex A.

In general, the idea of statelessness will be analyzed in reference to mentions of changes in the numbers of stateless people who are by law recognized as being stateless, as well as people who are, in the words of Gibney, “de facto stateless” (Gibney, 2015, p. 93). Statements related to the existence and/or exercise of unproportionate, undue or otherwise negative amounts of state power in the context of using denationalization will be coded as falling under the issue of arbitrariness. Lastly, the issue of an unequal treatment of citizens resulting from expansions of state powers to denationalize citizens will be coded in reference to mentions of single and/or double nationals being treated differently, as well as nationals being discriminated against or targeted due being from a minority background (Fargues, 2017).

(26)

25 Coding the two doctrines. In order to assess whether the answer to the main research question suggests that the Danish state has adopted the “dirty hands” or the “lesser evil” doctrine, the number of times each idea is mentioned will be counted, recorded and categorized per bill as follows:

I. A full adoption of the “dirty hands” doctrine will be recorded if none of the three ideas noted above are mentioned in any of the debates preceding a particular amendment; II. A full adoption of the “lesser evil” doctrine will be recorded if all of the three scholarly concerns are cumulatively recoded in the parliamentary debates preceding the passing of a given amendment. This means that e.g. “statelessness” may be absent in one debate, but understood as being cumulatively present for a particular amendment by being mentioned in another relevant debate preceding the same amendment; III. A “mixed approach” will be recorded if some, but not all, of the three ideas are mentioned in the parliamentary debates preceding the passing of an amendment altering the Danish state’s denationalization powers.

Except for when it is “zero”, the number of times the three academic concerns cumulatively appear in a parliamentary debate or are mentioned by a particular politician is not of relevance to the above-noted doctrines, and thus the thesis’ research (van Riezen & Roex, 2012). However, this number will still be recorded for the purpose of further scholarly interest; for example, if it is found that one scholarly worry appears significantly more times than the other two, further research explaining such differences would be interesting to conduct.

Limitations of content analysis as a research method. Albeit its above-noted benefits, using qualitative content analysis as a research method has numerous limitations. Due to the interpretative nature of the method at hand, the risk of the researchers’ linguistic or thematic understanding of the debates influencing the analysis cannot be eliminated

(27)

26 (Beckman, 2005; White & Marsh, 2006). However, in order to mitigate such effects, the study will be replicated twice, using a researcher who is fluent in Danish and English (Ibid). Additionally, as contextual understanding is particularly important when doing content analysis, a short description of the political climate and parliamentary process that, during the time of the debates may have influenced their content, will be provided for each amendment.

(28)

27

Section IV: Empirical Results and Analysis

Introducing dual-citizenship: Amendment L. 44 of the 2004 Nationality Act

Content and context of Amendment L. 44. As noted by Arnfin H. Midtbøen,

“rather than following European trends of facilitating naturalization and extending entitlement to citizenship, Denmark has raised the bar for acquiring citizenship. The most prominent changes in Danish nationality legislation in the 2000s concern the requirements for

naturalization. These requirements are – also in contrast to the other Nordic countries – not spelled out in the nationality act but defined in guidelines issued by the Ministry of

Immigration and Integration. Apart from changes in naturalization policies, rules on second-generation immigrant descendants’ entitlement to Danish citizenship by declaration were repealed, and provisions on the deprivation of citizenship due to fraud and serious prejudicial behavior were implemented in the nationality act in 2002 and 2004, respectively” (Midtbøen et al., 2018, p. 38).

Against such restrictive trends on Danish nationality, Midtbøen et al. note that it came as a surprise to many that the Social Democratic (S) government, supported by Venstre (V), the Red-Green Alliance (Ø) and the Liberal Alliance (I), passed Amendment L. 44 in 2015, allowing the acquisition of dual-citizenship (Ibid). In doing so, Amendment L. 44 made it possible for Danish “citizens to maintain their Danish citizenship even if they [had] moved to another country and became citizens there” (Justitsministeriet, 2014). Foreigners living in Denmark were no longer required to “give up their original citizenship in order to become Danish citizens” (Ibid). Although the core focus of the amendment was to “modernize” Danish citizenship laws in accordance to what the Social Democrats (S) described as an increasingly “globalized and interconnected world”, motivations drawing on national security-arguments were also present when the amendment in question was proposed before

(29)

28 Parliament (Folketinget, 2015). More specifically, as noted during the amendment’s first parliamentary hearing in late 2014, Jan E. Jørgensen (V), Venstre’s speaker, stated:

“I would also like to mention that dual citizenship allows us to expel Danish nationals who commit crimes against Denmark, for example terrorism. If they are a national of another country at the same time, yes, then we can take Danish citizenship from them and expel them to their original home country. Of course, that is not the main argument for dual citizenship, but it goes with it” (Folketinget, 2015).

Thus, security arguments were not the main focus of the subsequent three

parliamentary debates pertaining to the passing of Amendment L. 44. However, against the backdrop of a wider global terrorist threat from IS, the securitized rhetoric that had become increasingly apparent across the entirety of Denmark’s political spectrum as well as the wider media in the months preceding Amendment L. 44, was clearly reflected in the above-noted parliamentary debates. Ultimately, Amendment L. 44 extended the Danish state’s

denationalization powers by making it possible for Danish judges to remove the Danish citizenship of dual-citizens if they were found guilty of committing acts of terrorism, as defined under the Danish Criminal Code’s § 114 (“Fortabelse af Dansk Indfødsret,” 2015).

Coincidently, a month after the amendment in question was accepted in Parliament, the Copenhagen Shooting Attacks took place on February 14th and 15th, 2015, killing two people on three separate shootings in Copenhagen. However, as the presumed assailant, Abdel Hamid El-Hussein, who was shot and killed by Danish police on February 15th, 2015, was a single Danish national, it would not have been possible for the Danish state to exercise its recently acquired denationalization powers for the case in question (Rigspolitiet, 2015).

Parliamentary process. When looking at the parliamentary process pertaining to Amendments L. 44 and L.38, it is important to note that in Danish politics

(30)

29 “guidelines are subject to negotiation and are decided by the political parties that represent the majority in the parliament. Because of this arrangement, naturalization requirements are much more subject to politicization than in other countries, which accounts for the frequent – predominantly restrictive – changes that have occurred since the turn of the millennium” (Midtbøen, 2019).

Amendment L. 44 was drafted and proposed in the first of three parliamentary debates on the 30th of October, 2014. Strongly following the politicized trend outlined above, the first parliamentary hearing was dominated by emotionally latent and philosophical arguments, rooted in the wider topic of what it means to be Danish. Receiving support from the Conservative People’s Party, the far-right Danish People’s Party repeatedly stated that a person cannot be loyal to more than one country, and that introducing dual-citizenship would be a weakening of “Danishness” – a feeling they viewed as being inherently rooted in an individual’s blood-line, as opposed to their upbringing or national affiliation (Folketinget, 2015).

During the second parliamentary hearing, however, no comments on the content of the Amendment L. 44 were made by any member of Parliament. As a result, the amendment, as originally proposed, moved to its third debate in Parliament, wherein 108 parliamentarians voted on its passing. 89 parliamentarians voted in its favour, representing the Social

Democrats (S), Venstre (V), the Danish Social Liberal Party (RV), the Socialist People’s Party (SF), the Red-Green Alliance (Ø), the Liberal Alliance (LA), and independents. 19 parliamentarians, representing the Danish People’s Party (DF) and the Conservative People’s Party (C) voted against it. As a result, Amendment L. 44 was passed in the Danish Parliament on December 18th, 2014.

Analysis Ia. Concerns addressed. The content analysis of the three parliamentary debates pertaining to the passing of Amendment 44 reveals that the issues of (I) arbitrariness,

(31)

30 (II) the creation of statelessness and (III) the unequal treatment of citizens when deciding to extend the Danish state’s denationalization powers were addressed to a very limited extent.

In fact, the only concern that was addressed was that of the unequal treatment of citizens, which was only done once by Özlem Sara Cekic (SF) who, as a final comment during the Amendment’s 2nd hearing, stated:

“It's not a question, I just have a comment. Sometimes it's just really nice for a citizen with a minority background to hear something positive from the pulpit. It is not necessary to be a potential terrorist if you are granted dual citizenship and can just be expelled. Far, far most people like this country (Folketinget, 2015).”

Coming from a minority background herself, Cekic is criticizing the manner in which she finds some of the other parliamentary members’ focus on the amendment’s ability to denationalize citizens unfortunate; she criticizes how they indirectly suggest that dual-citizens are more likely to be terrorists than single-nationals. In doing so, Cekic evokes the worry of the unequal treatment of citizens in a similar manner as presented by Fargues, who argues that citizen-stripping laws may be particularly discriminatory to a particular segment of society (Fargues, 2017). In the case of Cekic, this segment of Danish society seems to be citizens “with a minority background” who receive dual-citizenship as a result of Amendment L. 44.

To Cekic’s comment, only one reply is made, namely by Ventre’s Jan E. Jørgensen, who states:

“So, if Mrs Özlem Sara Cekic had been here when we first read the case, she would have been able to hear [Venstre’s] views there as well. I don't think anyone else hears what I'm saying in the same way. Thank God there aren't very many terrorists, but compared to the few

(32)

31 that are, I think we can agree that it is nice to have the opportunity to expel that person if necessary. I also think SF would think that makes a lot of sense (Folketinget, 2015).”

In his reply, Jørgensen argues that during the first parliamentary discussion pertaining to Amendment L. 44, he did not suggest that future dual-citizens with a minority background were more likely to be terrorists; just that “it is nice to be able to expel that person if

necessary” (Ibid).

The worry, as presented by Cekic, is not further discussed in Parliament, and is thus not incorporated into the wider framework of Amendment L. 44. In regards to the research question at hand, this indicates that Danish parliamentarians have only to a very limited extent taken into account the issue of the unequal treatment of citizens when extending the Danish state’s powers to denationalize citizens with dual-citizenship on grounds of terrorism through Amendment L. 44 of the 2004 Nationality Act. When it comes to the issues of arbitrariness and the creation of statelessness, Danish parliamentarians have not taken the aforementioned scholar’s concerns into account at all during any of the relevant

parliamentary debates.

What must, however, be remembered, is that denationalization and the issue of terrorism was a minor part of Amendment L. 44, wherein the main focus lay on introducing dual-citizenship for the purpose of modernizing Danish nationality laws. To some extent, this explains why the three worries in question did not figure prominently during any of the parliamentary debates in question.

Analysis IIa. Doctrines. Based on the results of analysis Ia, it becomes evident that in regards to Amendment L. 44 of the 2004 Nationality Act, the Danish parliamentarians invoked a mixed doctrine, with a strong leaning towards the logic of the “dirty hands” doctrine as only one concern was addressed. This concern was not weighed or further

(33)

32 incorporated into the utilitarian cost-benefit calculation for extending the Danish state’s powers to denationalize dual-citizens in the context of terror (van Riezen & Roex, 2012).

The above-noted findings thus suggest that the Danish Parliament, when extending the denationalization powers of the Danish state, has acted in a manner that is not fully legitimate. According to the theory, this is because the extension of the power in question has not been supported by concerns to the ethical risks that allowing “behaviour that would previously be prohibited and/or restricted by law” stands to have for the liberal democratic foundations of the Danish state (Ibid, p. 98).

What must further be taken into account, is that the “dirty hands” doctrine and its underlying logic is primarily directed at decisions taken in contexts where “national security” is under direct and imminent danger – in other words, during high-pressure, crisis situations, with what is often little time for political deliberation. The threat of IS to the national security of Denmark – as most other Western European states – was, during the time-period in question, present. However, the threat of a terrorist attack during late 2014 cannot be said to have amounted to a crisis situation, as suggested by a security-report released by the Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) in December of 2014: “[PET] considers that the terrorist threat to Denmark is serious, but that the risk of becoming victims of a terrorist attack in Denmark is limited” (CTA, 2014).

As a result, the lack of parliamentary concern for any of the three above-noted scholarly worries is problematic, when considering that there was enough time to address them. However, this lack of concern should be weighed against the relatively limited focus that Amendment L. 44 had on the extension of the Danish state’s denationalization powers in the context of terrorism.

(34)

33

An administrative removal of nationality: Amendment L. 38 of the 2018 Nationality Act

Content and context of Amendment L. 38. Contrary to the limited focus of

Amendment L. 44 of the 2004 Nationality Act, Amendment L. 38 of the 2018 Nationality Act had, as its main objective, to further extend the Danish state’s denationalization powers for counter-terrorism purposes. More specifically, the re-elected Social Democratic (S)

government, introduced Amendment L. 38 in the Danish Parliament on the 23rd_{of October,}

2019, with the purpose of extending the Danish state’s ability to remove the citizenship of dual-citizens on grounds of terrorism. Termed the “rush-law” by various human rights groups as well as the wider Danish media due to its short process-time – namely, one day between its introduction and final vote in Parliament –, Amendment L. 38 was drafted in what numerous parliamentarians have referred to as a “high-pressure” context (“Danske fremmedkrigere kan nu få frataget passet uden rettergang,” 2019).

More specifically, following the 2019 Turkish invasion of Northern Syria, the number of (presumed) Danish foreign fighters – and their families – located in camps in the above-noted area was expected to rise, putting further pressure on the Danish government to “handle them” (Ibid). In an effort to do so, whilst ensuring that they would not pose further threat to Denmark’s national security, the government proposed Amendment L. 38 with the purpose of preventing foreign fighters with dual-citizenship from returning to Denmark by

administratively removing their Danish citizenship whilst abroad (Ibid).

Accepted in Parliament on the 24th of October, 2019, Amendment L. 38 of the Nationality Act 2018 greatly extended the powers of the Danish Foreign- and Integration Minister by allowing him or her – as opposed to a Danish judge – to remove the citizenship of dual-nationals located abroad. In doing so, there is no longer a need for a dual-citizen to be found guilty of breaching the Danish Criminal Code’s § 114 if the Minister, in deliberation

(35)

34 with a special council, deems the individual in question to have “acted in a manner that poses serious damage to the country’s vital interests” (Folketinget, 2019b).

In addition to its circumvention of the Danish judicial system, Amendment L. 38 has been highly criticized by numerous human rights groups and legal organizations for the short appeal time it grants those it targets – namely, four weeks (Justitia, 2019). More specifically, because many of those it affects are in camps located in conflict zones without internet access, it is likely that they will not be aware of their denationalization within the four-week appeal-window, as the decision is sent via the Danish Government’s electronic system of communication, “e-boks” (Ibid). As such, it becomes near-to impossible for them to appeal their case to the Danish judiciary in time (ibid).

Just a month after Amendment L. 38 was passed in the Danish Parliament, a Danish-Turkish foreign fighter, “SK”, lost his Danish citizenship, whilst an additional three cases had been set in motion by the Foreign- and Integration Minister (Haislund, 2019b).

Parliamentary process. Amendment L. 38 was drafted and proposed by the Social Democrats (S) in Parliament on October 23rd, 2019. Similar to the first parliamentary debate pertaining to Amendment L. 44 of the 2004 Nationality Act, Amendment L. 38’s first hearing was marked by strong emotional arguments, with a focus on Danish national security and what was agreed amongst all parliamentary speakers to be an “imminent terror threat” posed by the prospects of returnees (Folketinget, 2019a). However, unlike Amendment L. 44’s first parliamentary hearing, the discussions during the first and second parliamentary hearing of Amendment L. 38 also included topics such as the economic feasibility of administrative removals as well as the need for what Venstre (V) termed a “sun-down” clause; namely, a provision that would make it necessary for the Parliament to re-evaluate the amendment after a year (“Danske fremmedkrigere kan nu få frataget passet uden rettergang,” 2019).

(36)

35 Ultimately, with the addition of the “sun-down” clause following the second

parliamentary hearing, the amendment was moved to its third debate in Parliament on the 24th of October, 2019. Here, 93 parliamentarians voted on its passing, whilst 8 abstained from voting. 72 parliamentarians voted in the amendment’s favour, representing the Social

Democrats (S), Venstre (V), the Danish People’s Party (DF), the Conservative People’s Party (C), the Liberal Alliance (LA) and the New Right (NB). 21 parliamentarians, representing the Danish Social Liberal Party (RV), the Alternative Party (ALT) and the Red-Green Alliance (Ø) voted against it. The Socialist People’s Party (SF) abstained from voting. As a result, Amendment L. 38 was passed in Parliament.

Analysis Ib. Concerns addressed. The content analysis of the three parliamentary debates pertaining to the passing of Amendment L. 38 of the 2018 Nationality Act shows that the issues of (I) arbitrariness, (II) the creation of statelessness and (III) the unequal treatment of citizens were all addressed. In relation to the research question at hand, it can thus be said that Danish parliamentarians have to a very far extent taken all three worries into account when deciding to extend their state’s powers to denationalize Danish citizens in the context of terrorism.

Arbitrariness. The issue of arbitrariness and the undue exercise of state-power is mentioned 29 times, making it the worry that is mentioned the most throughout all three parliamentary debates. In fact, apart from the Social Democrats (S) who proposed

Amendment L. 38, representatives from all the political parties present voiced some concern over the manner in which the arbitrary removal of a foreign fighter’s citizenship – as opposed to its removal by court – stood to be problematic. This problematization can be categorized along four major themes:

(37)

36 (I) the manner in which it stands to undermine the Danish democracy’s triad of

power, exemplified by comments like:

Rasmus Nordqvist (AL): “Does the rapporteur really believe that this is entirely after the book, that we in no way change anything in our practice about the division of power, because that is just how we usually do it – that is, even after reading the consultation responses that came last night?”

Peder Hvelplund (Ø): “Is it still SF's opinion that it would be better for the decision to lie there rather than lie with the minister? For, after all, it will still basically be a breach of the triplets of power.”

Sikandar Siddique (AL): “This bill is not just about punishing a handful of foreign fighters, it is more than anything else about something as important as democracy, the rule of law and the division of power. In other words, it's about the very pillars of the society that we love and love so much.”

(II) the manner in which removing citizenship is a very harsh punishment, as insinuated by comments like:

Rasmus Nordqvist (AL): “But just to understand that logic anyway – because this is about the fact that there are some people who have done something criminal, something illegal, and therefore you want to deprive them of Danish citizenship, i.e. a fairly large and harsh punishment?”

Peder Hvelplund (Ø): “Taking citizenship from a human being – it goes without saying – is very intrusive.”

(III) the manner in which an arbitrary removal of citizenship is unfair as it does not require evidence of a breach of the Danish Criminal Code:

(38)

37 Peder Hvelplund (Ø): “On the other hand, it erodes the Danish rule of law. The Minister for Immigration and Integration must be able to administratively oust suspects of their

citizenship, and in some cases the basis for the exclusion will be so secret that even the Minister himself does not know about it.”

Kristian Hegaard (RV): “Thank you. In your answer, the rapporteur spoke of a so-called balance. There, I would ask where it is, on this balance, when you can be struck by something as intrusive as it is to be deprived of your citizenship, for an offense not even stated in the Criminal Code. What does that balance consist of?”

(IV) the manner in which the ability to arbitrarily remove someone’s citizenship grants the Foreign and Integration Minister too much power, shown by comments like: Peder Hvelplund (Ø): “What happens here is that the Foreign and Integration Minister is given the power to make a court-like decision and deprive a citizen of citizenship. After all, it is a breach of the case law we usually have.”

Jens Rohde (RV): “I would like to ask Mr. Rasmus Jarlov whether he agrees with the former Foreign Minister and former chairman of the Conservative People's Party, Mr. Per Stig Møller, that it is a very, very great power given to a minister, and that one cannot expect and demand from a minister that the minister should act objectively when the minister is a politician.”

As shown by the comments above, the issue of arbitrariness resulting from Amendment L. 38’s extension of the Danish state’s powers to denationalize in cases of terrorism was voiced frequently during the parliamentary discussions. The most vocal parties were the Red-Green Alliance (Ø), the Danish Social Liberal Party (RV) and the Liberal Alliance (AL), of which representatives from the former two parties voted against the amendment’s passing.

(39)

38 Their concerns were, however, to a far extent considered in Parliament. This is best illustrated by the fact that Venstre (V), whose representatives ultimately voted in favour of Amendment L. 38, proposed to introduce the “sun-down” clause; a clause that would require the amendment to be reconsidered and re-accepted after a year, partly to ensure that its passing in Parliament, which had taken place over the short time-span of a single day, had been democratic.

The creation of statelessness. The second-most discussed worry during the

parliamentary hearings preceding the passing of Amendment L. 38 of the 2018 Nationality Act was that of statelessness, which was mentioned a total of 12 times. Of all the

parliamentary representatives who voiced the concern, it was only Marie Krarup (DF) and Mette Thiesen (NB), from the Danish People’s Party and the New Right respectively, who were in favour of statelessness, regardless of whether or not it meant breaching the various human rights conventions signed by Denmark:

Marie Krarup (DF): “So, therefore, I would urge the government to work on getting out of a stateless convention or getting a reservation for it so that we can actually implement what we are proposing in Amendments L. 38.”

Mette Thiesen (NB): “People with Danish citizenship who have signed up under the Islamic State’s black flag should never ever be re-admitted to Denmark. They must be deprived of their Danish citizenship, and so we do not care whatsoever whether they become stateless. They have chosen and they have not chosen Denmark. Now of course we also have to not choose them. That is why we also support the Danish People’s Party’s amendments, which were mentioned earlier. We owe them only one thing, and that is that they can be allowed to rot where they are. Of course, they will never ever return to Denmark, and those who have already come to Denmark because of politicians’ failures must be deprived of their Danish citizenship and thrown out on their assess and elbows.”

Not our terrorist - not our problem? A case-study of the ethical considerations taken by Danish parliamentarians when extending national denationalization powers between 2015-2019, and its consequences for state-legitimacy